European Union

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the Eastern Partnership, in the run-up to the November 2017 Summit
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Knut Fleckenstein

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the Union of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Charles Tannock

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the Union of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Charles Tannock

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Yesterday I attended an event at the House of Commons on Brexit research and how it could be used to inform policy. This was jointly organised by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology and the Economic and Social Research Council, the latter of which is funding the UK in a Changing Europe programme, which in turn funding our project on the implications of Brexit for fisheries policy. On the one hand it was a good way to find out about other Brexit research taking place. Crucially, however, it was an opportunity to interact with parliamentarians and parliamentary staff, and discuss how our research could be used to inform their work.

The event kicked off with a couple of keynote addresses on the importance of research to inform policy debate. Participants were then given a choice. They could either attend one of a number of parallel sessions featuring presentations by each of the projects, grouped together around broad themes. Or they could circulate around a set of stalls where they could chat to project team members about what they were doing. I was set to work on one of the stalls while my other colleagues on the project did the presentation.

The overall number of people attending the event seemed high – from what I could tell it was standing room only for the keynote addresses at the start of the event. However by virtue of there being concurrent sessions, there were fewer people when it came to looking round the project stalls. I  was at our project’s stall for 1.5 hours, but  during this time I had only a handful people come up to me. Other projects’ stalls were also receiving low patronage, although levels of interest did vary by topic. Now, that’s not to say there wasn’t any interest in our project at all. There was, and I spoke to people with a specific interest in fisheries policy. It’s just that I was just expecting more.

This highlights one of the main challenges to engaging with policy makers and practitioner community. We were fortunate enough to have the event organised for us, for it to be hosted on the parliamentary estate and with the full support of the parliamentary authorities. And yet the overall number of attendees seemed low. This may be down to my unrealistic expectations of the event. But it also reflects the reality of pressures on other people’s time.

I know from my time as a practitioner in local government that politicians (even local councillors) are busy people. The same applies to the staff supporting their work, who all have day jobs to be getting on with. The pressures on parliamentarians’ time are obviously far greater. And, inevitably, the political priorities of the day take over – the event was taking place at roughly the same time as the urgent debate on sexual harassment in parliament, which has attracted much media attention over the last few days.

After brief reflection I’m not sure how I would have organised the event differently to overcome this. However, there was something that could have been done to better engage those who were attending. While footfall around the stalls was low (at least compared to my expectations), those getting the most attention seemed to have hit a basic formula: A simple message or research finding which could easily be condensed onto an A1 poster / infographic, which could be easily seen from a couple of metres away. Posters usually focused on a single but interesting finding from a just a small part of the overall project. This then acted as a hook, giving researchers an opportunity to go into further detail about their projects.

Any engagement with practitioners therefore needs to reflect the realities of time pressures they face. Messages need to be simple, to the point and easily digestible in a short amount of time. Conclusions need to be clear and not hidden away amongst some of the features that an academic audience might be expecting to see (such as a comprehensive literature review or detailed outline of methodology). Posters and infographics represent one way to achieve this clarity (Simon Usherwood’s infographics on the Article 50 negotiations are a good example).

I have used posters in the past to communicate my research in the past, and was a finalist in a poster competition on EU regional policy jointly organised by the Regional Studies Association and the European Commission. While I was teaching the Politics of the European Union module at Keele, I got the students to produce a poster on an EU institution (much to their frustration). The task is not as easy as the students initially think, but the experience at yesterday’s event vindicates my belief that the they should be able to communicate something complex (such as the EU’s institutional structure) in a succinct and engaging way.

EU posters by the students

So, I’m an fan of poster presentations, and observations from yesterday’s event showed they can be useful in communicating research to practitioners. Which only raises questions about why I didn’t think to follow my own advice for this event. In assuming it would be busier, I hadn’t given that much thought to how I would actually engage those who attended.

Now, my overall assessment is the event was a success. It was well organised, a fantastic opportunity to communicate our research to policy-makers and the contacts made will be valuable for our project and future engagement activities. But, with the benefit of hindsight, a little more effort into thinking how I would engage those that attended may have yielded a few more contacts and promoted our research beyond those with a specific interest in fisheries policy.

The post Effective engagement with practitioners: using posters and infographics appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

We’ve known this all along, but still many people don’t believe it. Citizens living here from the rest of the EU/EEA give much more to Britain than they take. They are a boon, not a burden, and we’d be poorer without them.

Last July in Parliament, Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley in West Yorkshire, asked Damian Hinds, the Minister for Employment, what benefits are received by EU migrants living in Britain.

Mr Hinds replied that, “The nationality and immigration status of claimants is not currently recorded on benefit payment systems.”

However, Mr Hinds was able to point Mr Davies to a government website giving information about the tax and national insurance contributions paid by EU/EEA citizens in Britain for the tax year 2013-2014, and the benefits those citizens received in tax credits and child benefits.

We already knew UK-dwelling EU migrants pay six times more tax and national insurance than they claim in ‘HMRC benefits’. These are specifically child benefit or tax credits.

But the figures released for 2013-2014 threw up some surprises.

French citizens living in Britain are the European nationals contributing the most to the Treasury coffers. In 2013-2014, they contributed £2.3 billion in tax and national insurance. Yet they only took £90m in tax credits and child benefits.

That means French citizens here contributed almost 26 times more to the Treasury than they took in HMRC benefits.

Second on the list of biggest contributors were the 790,000 Polish workers in Britain, who handed over nearly £2.2 billion to our Treasury in 2013/14 (the latest figures available).

They took £911 million in HMRC benefits, meaning that they gave 2.4 times more than they received.

The most impressive gulf between what’s paid in tax and claimed back from HM Revenue and Customs was by Greek citizens working in Britain. They paid 31 times more in tax (£439 million) than they claimed in HMRC benefits (just £14 million).

Not one EU/EEA country on the list showed any one of them taking more than they gave. Even the country with the smallest gap, Slovakia, had their citizens here paying almost twice as much in taxes as they took out of HMRC in benefits (£208 million to £122 million).

Overall, citizens here from all EU/EEA paid taxes in one year totalling £14.7 billion, but only took HMRC benefits worth £2.6 billion.

Summarised HM Revenue and Customs in their report, “In 2013-14, EEA nationals paid £12.1 billion more Income Tax and National Insurance than they took out in tax credits and Child Benefit.” 

That means that in one year alone, citizens here from the rest of Europe gave almost six times more to the Treasury than they took in HM Customs and Excise benefits.

(Switzerland is included in the figures because, although it’s not a member of the EU/EEA, it is part of the Single Market, meaning Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as EEA nationals).

The HMRC benefit figures didn’t include DWP benefits, such as Jobseeker’s Allowance or disability payments. But even if they were included, there is still a significant net gain from the receipts of EU/EEA tax contributions versus the benefits they receive.

Figures from the Department of Works and Pensions revealed that the out-of-work benefits paid to EU/EEA citizens totalled £886 million in the 2013-2014 tax year – just 3% of the total DWP budget for such benefits. These benefits include housing benefits, Jobseekers Allowance, and other out-of-work benefits.

Total DWP benefits paid to EU/EEA migrants during the 2013-2014 tax year, including in work and out of work, came to £3.4 billion, meaning there was a net overall gain of £8.7 billion from EU/EEA migrants here in just one year. (Source at end of article).

The DWP also reported that as of February 2015, only 21,460 nationals from the rest of the EU were claiming Jobseekers Allowance, and only 3,900 were claiming disability allowance.  (See ITV News: What benefits can eu migrants claim?)

In addition to income tax and national insurance, EU migrants living in Britain also pay a wide range of ‘indirect taxes’, such as VAT, duty on petrol, beer and cigarettes, as well corporation tax and business rates.

Of course this isn’t the full picture, and the overall calculations are far more complicated than simply deducting benefits paid out from taxes received.

But in summary we can see: all those EU citizens working here are paying in taxes far more than they receive in in-work benefits. Their tax contribution also more than adequately covers the costs of the very small number of EU migrants claiming out-of-work benefits. And even after all that, there is a massive surplus from the tax contributions of EU migrants to help the country. 

As part of his EU reforms last year, former Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced an ‘emergency brake’ on the benefits EU migrants can receive, meaning that new EU/EEA migrants would have to wait four years to receive in-work benefits.

Many migration and employment specialists were surprised by the imposition because the ‘brake’ wouldn’t make any difference. As even the Brexit-supporting Daily Telegraph pointed out:

“Around 90% of the EU nationals that come to Britain would not even be affected by the brake as they do not claim tax credits.” 

This really should come as no surprise. We have known for years that EU migrants coming to Britain make a massive net contribution to Britain.

They come to Britain to work, and fill job vacancies that there are simply not enough Britons to do.

Most of these migrants are in full and gainful employment. They are often dedicated, hard-working and highly desired by British employers. Only a tiny proportion are claiming benefits, and none came for benefits.

In extensive research undertaken by University College London, it was discovered that EU migrants arriving in Britain in the last decade (between 2001 to 2011) made a massive NET contribution to our Treasury of £20 billion.

During the same period, British people took out MORE from the Treasury than they put in – a deficit of a whopping £617 billion.

The same report revealed that, since most of those EU migrants came to Britain with their education already paid for, they ‘endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.’

A separate study conducted by the LSE last year concluded that:

• EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they use public services and therefore they help to reduce the budget deficit. 

• The areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers.  

• EU immigrants are more educated, younger, more likely to be in work and less likely to claim benefits than the UK-born.

The fact is that EU migrants coming here are enriching our country (as do non-EU migrants).

They are helping to pay for our schools and hospitals. They are contributing to our pensions. They are mostly in-work, paying-in more than they take-out, and spending most of their hard-earned earnings right here in this country.

So, why would Britain want to put a put a ‘brake’ on the numbers of citizens from the rest of the EU coming here, resulting in a drastic reduction in the huge benefits they bring to our country?

I asked the same question during last year’s referendum campaign on the James O’Brien LBC radio phone-in programme.

Mr James O’B responded:

“You leave me only with xenophobia and mild racism as the only motivation for the ‘Leave’ campaign…”

Is that right? Some Britons would prefer to forego the benefits that migrants bring to Britain because… they don’t like foreigners? 

If so, that’s a high price the country will have to pay for the disease known as xenophobia. 

• Related: Link to Jon Danzig’s phone-in to LBC’s James O’Brien during the referendum campaign.

► SOURCES: The website cited by the Employment Minister’s answer in Parliament last July is no longer available. I have found another government source for the statistics used in my graphic.

• Link to ‘DWP benefit expenditure on claims from EEA nationals, 2013/14′  

• Link to UCL report: Economic impact of EU migration

• Link to LSE report: Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK

____________________________________________________________

• Join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post EU migrants give more than they take appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The EU is currently reshaping its relationship with Armenia and Azerbaijan through new agreements for which the negotiations ended (Armenia) or started (Azerbaijan) in February 2017. After Yerevan’s decision to join the EAEU (thereby renouncing to sign an AA/DCFTA), the initialling of the CEPA provides a new impetus to EU-Armenia relations. It highlights Armenia’s lingering interest in developing closer ties with the EU and provides a vivid illustration of the EU’s readiness to respond to EaP countries’ specific needs and circumstances. The CEPA is also a clear indication that the EU has not engaged in a zero-sum game with Russia and is willing to exploit any opportunity to further its links with EaP countries. The launch of negotiations on a new EU-Azerbaijan agreement – in spite of serious political and human rights problems in the country – results from several intertwined factors, including the EU’s energy security needs and Baku’s increasing bargaining power. At this stage, Azerbaijan is interested only in forms of cooperation that are not challenging the political status quo. However, the decline in both world oil prices and domestic oil production in this country is creating bargaining opportunities for the EU in what promises to be a difficult negotiation.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

One year ago, I sent an email to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye (@davidkaye), in reaction to a public consultation, not knowing whether it mattered. Now that his report on “Access to Information in International Organizations” is published, I realized that I was one of a few people who had sent in a submission.

As you can see on the website of the report, my name is listed as one of five submissions from civil society and academia. However, my submission is not published because it came via email.

To make this more transparent, I publish below the text that I sent on 18 October 2016 in reaction to the public consultation. It’s not a refined submission – indeed just an email – but maybe it’s useful for future work in the direction of making the United Nations system and other international organizations more transparent to have this published here:

Dear Mr. Kaye,

through the Centre for Law and Democracy and a person working for Access Info Europe I saw that you are currently consulting with UN organizations on their access to information policies.

I do not know whether a submission from a researcher in political science and international public administration is welcome, especially after the general deadline has passed three days ago. However, I thought my observations would still be useful as context and as a “user’s” perspective.

My ongoing research on UN budgeting is part of a publicly funded project (see http://ipa-research.com/time), which itself is part of a larger research unit in Germany studying the work of international bureaucracies (http://ipa-research.com). I have been in particular to the UN in New York, ILO, UNESCO and WHO, including each of their archives. We also do research on other UN organizations, but less detailed than in these four cases.

If you allow, I would like to share three observations that I have found through my research in the UN system in the past two years:

1. Besides the archives or libraries, there is often no contact person named on public websites through which (ad hoc) requests for access to documents can be made. This means that one is forwarded from archives to relevant units, while relevant units may refuse access right away or refer back to higher levels of the hierarchy, leaving it unclear how to even ask for access to documents. Some UN organizations also have dedicated public document registers, some including main categories of administrative documents (even those that are not public), which allows to reduce the “unknown unknowns”, while other UN organizations publish their documents in unstructured ways or, if they have structured document repositories, they are not easily accessible for the public or documents are dispersed across several systems with different levels of (full-text) searchability.

2. The 20-year archival policy in the UN combined with the lack of access to documents policies makes well-reasoned academic research on UN organizations very difficult at worst and sketchy at best. There are two reasons for this:

First, the decision whether to actually archive documents is often taken years before the 20-year period is over. Going through archive documents 20 years and older (e.g. in UNESCO), I found that important parts of the budgeting decision-making documentation I was interested in had not been archived, while I had also no right to request more recent documents that were still in the hands of the secretariats. This left me without any documents not just for periods of 20 years but even well beyond that.

Second, the 20 year period seems to apply to documents with quite different degrees of political importance. In some cases, I was just looking for basic administrative guidelines describing a process inside the organization, but these documents, past and present, are treated similarly to internal letters in which detailed views and opinions of member states and UN administrative leaders are documented. The latter seem to have quite a different potential for creating diplomatic misunderstandings if published too early, while the former do not threaten diplomatic relations but rather reveal just basic systems of governance that are useful for our academic understand of how the respective UN organization works.

3. There is a lack of coherence in the application of the rules and practices, both within UN organizations and across the UN system. I happened to get documents in UN archives that were much younger than 20 years while the same type of documents from previous years were not accessible. Similarly, some of the documents I would get in one UN organization are difficult to impossible to get in another organization.

I make these three points since our research project started with a similar analysis for the EU-level, where there is Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents. I can say that getting access to administrative documents on EU budgeting of the past ten years relevant to our research was much more easy than any similar attempt to get access to UN documents.

Altogether, I think that all UN organizations should have a dedicated access to information policy, with clear guidelines for the outside world and a separation between archival documents and documents that are accessible outside the archives, either directly online or through requests.

Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you have any questions.

Ronny Patz

PS (Disclaimer): I have worked, in the past, for the EU Office of Transparency International (2010-12 as a volunteer, 2012-14 as a full time staff). I am in no work or other formal relationship with the office since June 2014, so the points made above reflect my personal views as a researcher.

 I really hope for future researchers, activists, and citizens that access to information from international organizations becomes easier in the future. The historic record of what IOs such as the United Nations have contributed to shaping our present world should be accessible, and today’s and future generations should be able to hold global institutions to account.

The post Freedom of information in international organizations appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 27 October, EU ambassadors endorsed a compromise between the Presidency and the European Parliament on improving the EU's instrument for contributing to stability and peace (IcSP).

This agreement introduces a possibility for the EU to extend its assistance by allowing for the financing of measures in support of capacity building for security and development (CBSD) of military actors in partner countries, with the objective of contributing to sustainable development and in particular the achievement of peaceful and inclusive societies. This new measure forms part of an EU-wide strategic framework to support the security sector reform.  It also aligns the objectives of the instrument with the commitments made by the EU towards the UN sustainable development goals and the recently agreed new European consensus on development.

''These improvements recognise that sustainable development depends on addressing the root causes of conflict and promoting peace and stability. From now on, we will be able to provide training, resources and equipment to partners to help them in their efforts to prevent violence and promote stable, peaceful and inclusive societies" said Kaja Tael, permanent representative of Estonia to the EU and president of the permanent representatives committee.

The IcSP was first set up in 2014 as part of the EU's new generation of instruments for financing external action. It is one of the main tools to help prevent and respond to crises in third countries as part of ensuring a secure and stable environment.

Under the new rules agreed today, the EU will be able to assist the security sector and, in exceptional circumstances, support the military in various ways, including through:

• financial support to enhance the competence of the military to carry out development and human security-related tasks such as the reconstruction and rehabilitation of civil infrastructure, mine clearing and civil protection tasks;
• supply of equipment and infrastructure for the military in the areas of IT, transport, communication, water infrastructure and sanitation;
• training, mentoring and advice.

The regulation does not allow EU assistance to be used to finance recurrent military expenditure, the provision of arms and ammunition or lethal equipment or combat training.

The new measures will be financed primarily through the redeployment of existing resources under the general budget of the Union (Heading IV of the multiannual financial framework). They will be allocated €100 million for the period 2018-2020. 

The next step is for the Parliament and the Council to formally adopt the regulation, with a view to its entry into force by the end of the year.

 

12.00 Meeting with President of Sierra Leone Ernest Bai Koroma

The meeting of the European Council will take place on 14 and 15 December 2017 in the Europa building in Brussels. The press centre remains located in the Justus Lipsius building.

Apply on  https://eventaccreditationjour.consilium.europa.eu/

APPLICATION DEADLINE 20 November 2017, 12.00 (noon)

Procedure

• If this is your first registration, please make sure you have a recent ID-size photograph in JPEG format (.jpg) and the number of your passport or identity card ready before starting the online process.
• You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt by email. Please read it carefully as it includes the list of original documents you will be asked to present when collecting your badge. Depending on your profile, the requested documents will include: Passport or ID card, press card and/or an original signed letter in paper copy from your editor-in chief as well as the signed original of your authorisation for security screening (only for media representatives of Belgian nationality or resident in Belgium). The press centre may contact you to request additional information if necessary. No accreditation badge will be issued if you cannot present all required documents.
• Under certain conditions it is possible to organise a group registration/collection of badges for journalists working for the same media. Select group registration at the beginning of the accreditation process and follow the instructions.
• Trainees with media organisations who do not possess a press card are not entitled to request accreditation.

----------------------------

Journalists holding a 6-month badge (31.07.2017 - 31.12.2017) do not need to register

6-month badges can be collected at the accreditation centre of the LEX building during summits. Please ensure that you have all the required documents when collecting your badge.

----------------------------

Collection of badges

Accreditation badges can be collected at the LEX building (145 rue de la Loi, Brussels)

• Wednesday 13 December 9.30 - 13.00 and 14.00 - 18.00
• Thursday 14 December 8.30 - 20.00
• Friday 15 December from 08.00 to the end of the final press conference (max. 22.00)

----------------------------

Practical information on the press centre and the media programme will follow.

For more details on the European Council meeting, see the meeting page

 

The Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of Estonia, Bulgaria and Austria, representing the trio of Presidencies of the Council of the EU, together with the European Commission, represented by the European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality and the European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship met on 26-27 October 2017 with their counterparts from six Western Balkan partners at the annual EU-Western Balkans Ministerial Forum on Justice and Home affairs. 

The Ministers underlined the key importance of rule of law, justice and fundamental rights in the EU's relation with the region and of practical cooperation on justice and home affairs and focused on the topics of: justice reform, judicial cooperation, migration and border management, counter-terrorism and radicalisation, as well as fight against firearms trafficking.

Justice session 

The Ministers emphasized the importance of the independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems as the basis of peaceful, democratic societies, underpinning economic growth. They agreed that quality justice systems were crucial to create mutual trust, which is necessary for judicial cooperation and the application of mutual recognition instruments. 

Justice Reform

The Ministers welcomed the efforts made by the Western Balkans partners in the area of justice reform and underlined that more would need to be done for the effective implementation of judicial reforms, bringing direct benefits to citizens while being also a fundamental element of the EU accession process. 

The Ministers discussed in particular the issue of accountability and agreed to focus Western Balkans reform efforts on meeting European standards[1] for judges and prosecutors. The Western Balkans partners agreed to work with the Commission to develop a set of key indicators to measure the performance of justice systems by the beginning of 2018. They supported the development of electronic case management systems that would help reduce backlogs of cases and were able to provide random case allocation. 

The Commission reconfirmed its willingness to support the ongoing justice reform processes in the region through political support, expert advice and financial assistance from the Instrument for Pre-Accession. 

Judicial Cooperation

The Ministers acknowledged that improving regional judicial cooperation in the Western Balkans was crucial to good neighbourly relations.

The Western Balkan Justice Ministers committed that their authorities would serve mutual legal assistance requests from their neighbours more swiftly in order to jointly and efficiently fight the most severe forms of crime affecting the region. 

With a view to reinforceing the fight against transnational crime, the Ministers and the Commission agreed on the importance for the Western Balkans which have not yet done so, to conclude cooperation agreements with Eurojust as soon as possible. The Justice Ministers of the Western Balkans partners committed to take the necessary measures, in particular on data protection legislation, to move the process further. The Commission recalled the importance of implementing Council of Europe instruments both on judicial cooperation and on substantive criminal law as they provide the main legal basis for smooth cooperation between EU and Western Balkans practitioners. 

On judicial cooperation in civil matters, the Ministers agreed that the instruments of The Hague Conference were crucial to resolve in particular sensitive trans-border family disputes. The Ministers of Western Balkans committed themselves to ratifying the Hague Conference instruments having a direct link with the EU acquis.[2]

Home Affairs session Migration and border management 

The Ministers concurred that ensuring effective border management and fighting migrant smuggling remained top priorities for both the EU and the Western Balkans. The unprecedented scale of migrant smuggling by the criminal networks requires permanent vigilance and an effective partnership between countries and regions directly affected. 

The Ministers recognised the importance of cooperation of Western Balkans partners with Europol and with EU Member States in combatting migrant smuggling. They committed to continuing the cooperation between the Western Balkans´ law enforcement agencies with EU Member States and Europol to dismantle organised crime groups responsible for facilitating this activity. 

The Ministers welcomed regional initiatives designed to improve information and intelligence exchange both at strategic and at law enforcement level. Ministers recognised the important role of the European Migrant Smuggling Centre and the Joint Operational Office against Human Smuggling Networks (JOO) in tackling the migrant smuggling phenomenon, as well as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency Liaison Officer deployed to Belgrade with a regional mandate for increased border management cooperation. 

The Ministers discussed the state of implementation of the visa-free regimes. Taking note of the cases of unfounded asylum applications, the Ministers committed to strengthening their efforts in addressing this phenomenon in order to prevent triggering of the visa suspension mechanism. 

Counter-terrorism and Radicalisation 

The Ministers acknowledged that terrorism continued to be a common challenge for the European Union and the Western Balkans region and that close cooperation was essential for preventing radicalisation and terrorism. Ministers agreed that the existing formats and networks of cooperation, including through the Radicalisation Awareness Network, should be further strengthened. 

Ministers confirmed that they faced similar challenges in responding to the security threat posed by violent extremism and agreed to work together to address its root-causes and to build resilient and cohesive societies. They further acknowledged that EU Counter Terrorism/Countering Violent Extremism political dialogues with the Western Balkans countries are useful for identifying the priorities and designing concrete action. 

The Ministers welcomed in particular the broadening of the scope of the Western Balkans Counter-Terrorism initiative (WBCTi) to cover also the fight against serious and organised crime and border security. Ministers recognised that this enhanced role of WBCTi facilitates EU´s capacity-building support in the area of internal security and should enable the Western Balkans partners to better detect and tackle security challenges. 

The Ministers committed to strengthening their operational partnership to efficiently and effectively address counter-terrorism and radicalisation, but also transnational organised crime and border security, in line with the new Integrative Internal Security Governance model and in cooperation with the relevant EU agencies. In this context, Ministers called for a swift conclusion of the discussion concerning the practical implementation of the pilot project to deploy Europol Guest Officers to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. 

The Ministers took stock of their continuous efforts to address the firearms trafficking and discussed progress achieved in implementation of the Joint Statement on Enhancing the Fight Against Illicit Trafficking of Firearms and Ammunition in the Western Balkans endorsed at their meeting last year. They committed to continue to carry out joint actions to enhance seizures of firearms, ammunition and explosives, to improve security of firearms and ammunition storage capacities, and to periodic disposals of surplus arms and ammunition, particularly those confiscated from illegal activities. The Ministers also welcomed the EU assistance in providing training on firearms to law enforcement officers. 

The Ministers agreed to continue cooperation on all the issues discussed at the Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Forum and to have further exchanges at their next meeting.

[1] The European Standards for judicial systems are based on instruments such as the rulings of Council of Europe's Venice Commission. The main issues that they cover are (i) transparent and merit-based recruitment (ii) effective disciplinary rules and codes of ethics (iv) complaint mechanisms that are accessible to the public (v) access to justice including for women, children, the poorest and the most vulnerable (vi) effective legal aid (vii) alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (viii) judicial training practices (ix) Improvements in the day-to-day administration of courts. 

[2] 1996 Convention on Child Protection, 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreement, 2007 Convention on Child Support and Family Maintenance and the Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.

 

Today, the EU's Political and Security Committee has appointed Major General Charlie Stickland, a high-ranking military official in the Royal Marines, as new Operation Commander of the Operation Atalanta. He will take up his duties on 7 November 2017.

The European Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) Operation Atalanta contributes to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast. The operation is part of the EU's comprehensive approach for a peaceful, stable and democratic Somalia.

The operation also protects vessels of the World Food Programme and other vulnerable shipping, monitors fishing activities off the coast of Somalia and supports other EU missions and programmes in the region.

After the car bomb attack of 14 October 2017 in Mogadishu, Operation Atalanta, the EU Delegation in Somalia and the EU Training Mission in Somalia, provided support in particular to the United Nations to assist the victims.

The EU's Political and Security Committee is composed of member states' ambassadors based in Brussels.

• CV of Major General Charlie Stickland
• EU NAVFOR Operation Atalanta (Website)
• EU NAVFOR Operation Atalanta (factsheet)
• Statement by the High Representative on the attacks in Mogadishu, Somalia, 15/10/17

 

Dear Mr Rutte,

On behalf of the European Council, I would like to congratulate you on your reappointment as Prime Minister.

I trust that you and your government will continue playing a dynamic and constructive role in the European Union. This is all the more important at a time when we are working hard to implement the Leaders' Agenda that will guide the work of the European Council in the months and years to come.

I look forward to continuing our close and good cooperation in the European Council.

Veel succes!

 

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/consilium_16210_39350_24889_32.75_thumb_169_1507717933_1507717933_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Finance Ministers meet on 7 November 2017 in Brussels to discuss with their EFTA counterparts from Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland how to make economic growth inclusive. At a breakfast meeting, Ministers are assessing the economic situation. They are also discussing the EU's common candidate for the position of secretary general of the World Customs Organisation. Afterwards, the Council is called on to agree on proposals to revamp VAT rules so as to better support electronic commerce and online businesses. Financial supervision and encouraging capital market integration are also on the agenda.  The Court of Auditors is presenting its annual report on management of the EU budget, on the basis of which discharge of the 2016 budget is to be decided.

Download this video here.

Delegations

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The next AFET meetings are scheduled to take place as follows:

- Monday, 6 November 2017, 15:00-18:30, room JAN 2Q2 (Brussels).

Further information
Information for visitors
Draft agendas
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Length of video : 69'
You may manually download this video in WMV (553Mb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Length of video : 190'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.2Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on the implementation of the Joint Staff Working Document (SWD(2015)0182) - Gender equality and women's empowerment: transforming the lives of girls and women through EU external relations 2016-2020
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP